Current Events > Most Overrated Generals

(+) Yeah! (+)

Alexander the Great- He basically took Daddy's work and didn't **** it up. Plus it was already proven that the Greek style Phalanx armies were Persian Kryptonite.

Robert E Lee- All he did was defend and run away. Once the Union got it's war machine he was getting wrecked at the end of the war.

Erwin Rommel- The German version of Robert E. Lee, all he did was defend and run away, once the British got it's war machine rolling got wrecked lol

Any other Nazi Germany general-


---

Custer- the only reason he's famous is because they made a porno Atari 2600 game about him

The warned general.

---

General Mills

---

Montgomery

The brony general

---

General Tso.
his chickens ain't shit.

---

Definitely not Bolvar. Dude liberated 7 countries with a bunch of farmers and slaves that had never fought before.

---

robert e lee was a based king

---

Rommel was an excellent divisional commander, but when he got promoted past that, he started to break down. He had a penchant for ignoring orders he didn't like, and his understanding of logistics and supply lines can best be summed up by the word "Huh?"

But he didn't like Hitler, so you have a bunch of the Clean Wehrmacht people extolling his virtues.
---

The Washington Generals

---

Ranlom posted...

The Washington Generals

i'd say they're fairly rated

---

dang I forgot to say George Washington :(

---

UnholyMudcrab posted...

Rommel was an excellent divisional commander, but when he got promoted past that, he started to break down. He had a penchant for ignoring orders he didn't like, and his understanding of logistics and supply lines can best be summed up by the word "Huh?"

But he didn't like Hitler, so you have a bunch of the Clean Wehrmacht people extolling his virtues.

The Axis powers were fighting a losing battle against logistics the whole time lol

---

how do you support your claims, TC?

I'm no historian, so I dunno, but idk if reducing their accomplishments like that is much of an argument.

---

General Tso

g0ldie posted...

how do you support your claims, TC?

I'm no historian, so I dunno, but idk if reducing their accomplishments like that is much of an argument.

Overrated doesn't necessarily mean bad

---

I wasn't saying that, I was just asking how that means they're overrated

---

Hannibal. Scipio ROFLstomps

---

George Washington

---

JBaLLEN66 posted...

Alexander the Great- He basically took Daddy's work and didn't **** it up. Plus it was already proven that the Greek style Phalanx armies were Persian Kryptonite.

Lol, Greek hoplites didn't win once against the Persians until Marathon. The rugged Greek terrain does help here, fighting highly mobile Persian cavalry with heavy infantry on open plains went predictably badly on many occasions.

The real key to Macedonian success is their excellent application of combined arms tactics, using missile troops at range, their own Phalanx derivative with small shields and extremely long spears to fix the opposition front line; and following this up with flanking cavalry.

Whilst much of this is down to Philip, many fine armies have been lost due to poor judgement from their general. The successful conquering of an empire the size of the Persians, suggests that Alexander had a sound grasp of logistics, and an excellent eye for the ground and his opponent's deployment at the very least.

---

Mussurana posted...

Lol, Greek hoplites didn't win once against the Persians until Marathon. The rugged Greek terrain does help here, fighting highly mobile Persian cavalry with heavy infantry on open plains went predictably badly on many occasions.

The real key to Macedonian success is their excellent application of combined arms tactics, using missile troops at range, their own Phalanx derivative with small shields and extremely long spears to fix the opposition front line; and following this up with flanking cavalry.

Whilst much of this is down to Philip, many fine armies have been lost due to poor judgement from their general. The successful conquering of an empire the size of the Persians, suggests that Alexander had a sound grasp of logistics, and an excellent eye for the ground and his opponent's deployment at the very least.

I'm not saying he's a terrible general he definitely had skill, but he's by no means god tier. There's a reason the Phalanx saw widespread use throughout history because how effective it was when used properly.

---

g0ldie posted...

I wasn't saying that, I was just asking how that means they're overrated

They are overrated because they get much more recognition than deserved.

---

JBaLLEN66 posted...

I'm not saying he's a terrible general he definitely had skill, but he's by no means god tier.

Name a general who was

JBaLLEN66 posted...

They are overrated because they get much more recognition than deserved.

is your argument that there are generals who deserve more recognition than them, then?

like, with Alexander the Great, for example, is there a superior general, in his time, IYO?

---

coh posted...

Montgomery

Montgomery's pretty good , excellent troop trainer and motivator with fine planning skills. Not as good as he thought he was, but that would be impossible, one big ego :)

Personally I rate Slim higher as far as WW2 British Army battlefield generals go.

---

coh posted...

Name a general who was

Mao Zedong, Napoleon, Hannibal, Julius Caesar, Frederick the Great, I'm sure there's more

---

Mao Zedong over Alexander?

lol get the fuck outta here

coh posted...

Mao Zedong over Alexander?

lol get the fuck outta here

Last time I checked, China didn't die off after Mao died hmmmm

---

general traag
---

Dollar General

JBaLLEN66 posted...

Last time I checked, China didn't die off after Mao died hmmmm

That's about empire management and setting up a regime with staying power. A political skill set rather than a generals. Not that they don't necessarily overlap if your head of state is also your battlefield general.

But that train of thought would suggest that Darius was a better battlefield general than Cyrus, and I'm not sure I buy that. Better administrator sure, but that's not the same thing.

---

g0ldie posted...

is your argument that there are generals who deserve more recognition than them, then?

like, with Alexander the Great, for example, is there a superior general, in his time, IYO?

Just in general lol

---

Mussurana posted...

That's about empire management and setting up a regime with staying power. A political skill set rather than a generals. Not that they don't necessarily overlap if your head of state is also your battlefield general.

But that train of thought would suggest that Darius was a better battlefield general than Cyrus, and I'm not sure I buy that. Better administrator sure, but that's not the same thing.

Mao basically did what Hannibal and Rommel did but was able to overcome his **** circumstances and beat Japan and China. Alexander is a good general, but he only fought one real enemy and inherited a lot of weapons. He is basically Trevor Lawrence lol.

---

JBaLLEN66 posted...

Mao basically did what Hannibal and Rommel did but was able to overcome his **** circumstances and beat Japan and China. Alexander is a good general, but he only fought one real enemy and inherited a lot of weapons. He is basically Trevor Lawrence lol.

I feel it should be pointed out that Alexander ascended the throne at only 20, then conquered the greatest empire in the world in only 10 years without ever losing a battle; in the process founding 20 cities that bear his name.

Sure he died before he could secure his line of succession, but the kingdoms his generals founded would rule the East until the Romans rocked up. There's a reason his tactics are taught even today in military academies.

---

General Specific

---

YourLovelyTina posted...

General Specific

I hated Sheep in the City. lol

---

Frizzurd posted...

I hated Sheep in the City. lol

it was weird, I think the bad guys were my favorite characters
Private Public seemed like a decent fellow

---

nobody posted Leonidas yet?

---

Ricemills posted...

nobody posted Leonidas yet?

Leonidas was the war king of sparta not a general.

---

Godnorgosh posted...

General Pepper. You see the paltry sum he pays the Star Fox team for saving the galaxy? Total racket.

"WHAAaaaaaaaaAaaAAAAaaaaT!?"

---

General Leo

---

General Guy

although the boss music isn't
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=thjAVR4FR5U

---

JBaLLEN66 posted...

Alexander the Great- He basically took Daddy's work and didn't **** it up. Plus it was already proven that the Greek style Phalanx armies were Persian Kryptonite.

I'm going to go a bit off-topic here on this bit here so you've been warned.

First a Greek style phalanx was not a Persian Kryptonite. Persian warriors had defeated the Ionian Greeks both during the conquest of Ionia and the Ionian revolt. In fact the reason the battle of Marathon was so significant was because it was the first time a Greek army had beaten a Persian army in a land battle. One thing to note that it wasn't the phalanx alone that gave the Greeks victories over the Persians, the Greek city-state's militaries were more primitive and less organized than the world conquering Persians but they did enjoy some advantages over their adversaries. One being the use of terrain and avoiding fighting the Persians in their favored ground, usually taking up to hills or chokepoints like at Plataia, fighting aggressively and quickly rushing to their enemies meant that the Persian's barricade of shields was less effective and since these were communities in arms this meant that they were familiar with one another and showing shame was to be avoided. Also these communities had their survival at stake, a loss in battle could mean the destruction of their community such as the population being sold into slavery or the men killed and the women and children sold into slavery. This could motivate them and morale is crucial in battle, the Persians did everything right at Plataia but the stubborn Greeks grinded it out and came out on top. But even if you believe that the hoplites were the kryptonite of the Persians they had access to Greek mercenaries anyways. For example the Persians had more Greeks on their armies than Alexander did in his.

Second the Macedonian pike phalanx was a different beast altogether from the hoplite phalanx. Where the Greeks had a system in place where all a man really needed to do was bring his weapons and stand in his station, since they were common people in arms, the Macedonians had a system of more sophisticated organization and of standing armies, a tradition found in Persian satraps, Thracian Kings, Greek tyrants. Basically autocrats with large resources at their disposal could afford to have standing armies instead of relying on militias. The Macedonians trained in drills, followed Spartan organization and were professional soldiers. In comparison during the 4th century BC the Greeks seem to have thought of military training as pretensions and not needed, after all these amateurs in arms had defeated the greatest military power of their day. Xenophon writes that the men of these city states would mock those that trained for war and Plato writes that the sight of men performing drills might be strange and bizarre. Among the city-states only the Spartans seem to have practiced basic formation drills, which Xenophon describes as just simply following the man in front of you. These attitudes and the lack of any military aristocratic class, basically no officer class because there were no institutions and officers were elected, meant that most Greek hoplites were poorly organized, could only do for the most part crude aggressive actions and couldn't maintain a formation on the move.

---

If Lee was such dogshit why exactly is he still taught in West Point?

And Alexander the Great? Seriously?

No general is perfect but thats not the way to start a topic.

---

George Washington

---

I agree with Rommel. Disagree with the other 2.

---